tv MSNBC Live With Katy Tur MSNBC March 12, 2019 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
all right. thanks for watching "velshi & ruhle." katy tur picks up coverage in washington. >> hi, ali. thank you very much. here in washington, the house speaker has suddenly and publicly taken impeachment all but off the tanble. nancy pelosi called the process divisive and said, quote, unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country and he's just not worth it. here's how nbc's first read frames pelosi's political calculation. it changes the conversation away from impeachment, gives at-risk dems a shield when asked the "i" word question, and places the burden on republicans. pelosi's new line on impeachment received divided reaction from her party. there are those who agree with her. among them, the chair of house intel. >> i think the speaker is absolutely right. in its absence, an impeachment
becomes a partisan exercise doomed for failure. and i see little to be gained by putting the country through that kind of wrenching experience, as i've often remarked in the past. the only thing worse than putting the country through the trauma of an impeachment is putting the country through the trauma of a failed impeachment. >> while some are concerned pelosi's move might undermine the more than a dozen congressional investigations launched into the trump administration and campaign, and others who believe the president should be held accountable. >> i fully understand where speaker pelosi is coming from. she makes valid points, but in my opinion, if impeachment is to mean anything, and it's in the constitution for a reason, it's because when we see evidence of impeachable offenses, we need to start the process to remove the president from office. >> we have a duty to impeach when we see that crimes have been committed.
>> we're changing public opinion, and when public opinion is in support of removal, i'm confident that the impeachment will go forward. >> while backing away from impeachment might be the best political decision for democrats right now, our big question is, will backing away from impeachment prove to be the right decision in the long run? joining me, "washington post" white house bureau chief and msnbc political analyst phil rucker. politico senior writer, jake sherman. daly beast politics reporter and msnbc contributor, betsy woodruff. and law fair editor in chief, brookings senior fellow ben wi it, tis. you guys all have a lot of titles. jake sherman, first to you. what's the reaction on capitol hill? is this nancy pelosi reading her caucus or trying to get her caucus in line? >> probably both, right? this is a move that clearly calculated, right. the speaker of the house doesn't say something of this nature
about such a hot-button issue without a lot of thought behind it. that's what her aides told me over the last 12 to 20 hours, that this was a calculated comment meant to give her members space from this issue. the capitol building, reporters are walking around all the time. impeachment is issue 1a every single day. it gives her members the ability to say, listen, our speaker has told us we're not doing anything for the moment. pelosi has still given herself a lot of wiggle room. when mueller comes out, she'll be able to say, listen, i didn't want to do this, but what we have now found out has necessitated impeachment. so i think that's what she was thinking. that's what she was aiming for. and remember, there's a lot of ancillary issues over the last two months that have drowned out the democrats' agenda from the controversial comments to impeachment to the cohen hearings. they have a lot of what they consider to be successes, achievements, which have been almost completely drowned out. they passed a massive gun
control bill. they passed a good government bill, what they consider a good government bill. those are two issues they want to talk more about and they've not been able to focus on at all. >> if this is an effort, though, to talk about policy, jake, how does that fall in line with all the investigations that are being done at the same time and the requests for 81 different people giving different documents? i understand the democrats will say we can walk and chew gum at the same time, but if they're holding what are impeachment hearings without calling them impeachment, aren't they giving the white house and republicans the same talking point, the same criticism that they had in the first place? >> yes, absolutely. and that is kind of what i've been saying all along to democrats in retort. if you're not going to do impeachment and you're going to do all these oversight hearings, it's really just impeachment by another name. in fact, i would argue a long, drawn-out oversight process is just as bad, if not worse, than
impeachment. number two, congress does have split responsibilities, especially in divided government. they both have to do oversight of the administration and pass laws. now, the president is not really willing, according to him, to work with democrats if they're going to conduct massive oversight hearings. but congress does have the responsibility to do both, and that is kind of the existential question in divided government. can the house majority that's opposed to the president both achieve things legislatively and keep a check on the administration? and it's not new to this current governing dynamic. >> it's not really, as we were talking about, changing the way republicans are going after democrats. listen to john cornyn talking about pelosi. he's saying she doesn't have her caucus under control. >> miss pelosi is pretty masterful at trying to hide the fact that there's an avalanche of support on the left for impeaching president trump. that's what all these
investigations and the harassment of the president seem, to the subpoenas and witnesses being called, reinvestigating everything that's been investigated the last two years, specifically in regard to the russia collusion for which there's no evidence. i think she's trying to create an impression that she has it all under control, and i'm confident she does not. >> phil, will the white house's talking points change after this? >> well, katy, i can tell you that "washington post" interview circulated widely yesterday afternoon in the white house, and they were quite pleased to see speaker pelosi's comments. and remember back to the stand-off that trump had with pelosi and with senator schumer during the 35-day government shutdown. he was regularly attacking schumer. he was regularly attacking democrats. but he held his fire when it came to pelosi. he's not given her one of those trademark nicknames. and the reason for that is he has seen her as, in a way, his ally on this impeachment issue, as somebody who's going to keep
the more sort of liberal members of the democratic caucus in check and keep them from pursuing impeachment, but the president may be miscalculating there because she's still very aggressively leading investigations into the administration and i think is going to be doing everything she can with these committees to expose wrongdoing, expose corruption, and create longer-term political damage for the president. >> but if there is enough there, there is talk that pelosi's left herself a big out and can change her mind. there's so much here, we have to impeach. but part of her qualifications for impeachment, part of the bar she set is bipartisan support. is that putting it, with this congress, impossibly high? is there any chance for bipartisan support for impeachment with this president? >> the irony here is most of the republicans who potentially would have been on board with some sort of impeachment step
basically all of them lost in 2018 because they were the moderates who lost in districts that were toss-ups. now they've all been, for the most part, replaced by democrats. the notion that republicans are going to get on board with this in any substantive way just sort of defies belief. >> why not wait for the mueller report? >> that's another good question. one of the challenges for democrats that's front of mind is if they put off impeachment or initiating impeachment proceedings for several more months, that it's going to be this nightmare split screen. every 2020 candidate will be asked about impeachment. it will predominate. they won't be able to talk about health care. the impeachment conversation will drown it all out. for many democrats in washington, they don't want to see that happen. >> ben wi ittis, what's the message being sent to this president and white house? if nancy pelosi is taking impeachment off the table by
setting a high standard for it, is she telling the president, or is the president getting the message that he's above the law for the rest of his term? >> so i don't think so. i actually think what pelosi did yesterday was extremely clever and actually doesn't tie her hands in any meaningful sense. so it is a bad thing if you are nancy pelosi to look like your caucus is gleefully gearing up to go after the president irrespective of the fact. it's far better to look like if you end up going that route, that you did it very reluctantly and because it met some very high standard that you set at the outset and really didn't want to do it. so what she did is she basically laid out a standard that sounds really own rnerous, which is if facts absolutely force us and we can do is in a bipartisan fashion, which actually technically means one republican
joins them. so i think what she's saying is let's wait and see what the mueller report record looks like and wait and see what the southern district of new york turns up. if you ask me whether on the current record she's saying we would actually move forward on this, the answer is no. but i'm keeping an open mind toward facts that may develop, and i actually think that's a recognition of reality, which is right now there is not a record that a bipartisan majority in the house, let alone a majority to remove in the senate would acknowledge. so what she's saying is let's wait and see if that situation develops. don't expect me to move right now. i think as adam schiff said in response, that's actually sort of a recognition of a reality, not a radical statement of
conservatism. >> but you think bipartisan, ben, can mean just one republican? the bar is really that low? >> well, i mean, it's meant to sound like it should be a wave of bipartisanship. as betsy said, that's not going to happen. but the question -- i was sort of joking about one republican, but the question is how few could you have and still claim that it was a bipartisan action? i don't think the answer is one or two, but look, 13 or so -- i forget how many voted to -- voted with the democrats on the national emergency legislation, and so i don't think it's impossible to imagine that if the record were really terrible, you would have some who were in the face of an overwhelming record compelled to support an impeachment article. i think it's just wise of pelosi
to not proceed in the absence of some overwhelming record. and since we don't know what that record is going to look like, what she's really saying is ask me when i know what the record looks like. >> how does the president feel, phil? does he feel like he's invincible now? does he feel like he's successfully raised the bar so high on impeachment that if mueller doesn't come back with a phone call between him and vladimir putin talking about how they were going to release these e-mails and the timing of how to take down hillary clinton that anything short of that is not enough for impeachment? does he feel invincible? >> katy, i don't think he feels invincible. i think that's one of the reasons you see him so frequently sort of show anxiety and reveal it in his public tweets about the witch hunt, you know, claiming victimhood. he will certainly feel better if and when the mueller report comes out and if and when it doesn't find any specific wrong
doing about him. but we don't know that's what the outcome of this mueller report is going to be. and indeed, the report could document a whole bill of goods that would completely overnight change the conversation here about impeachment. so he does not feel invincible, although he does feel pleased at the moment with what pelosi had to say. certainly his aides were happy to see those quotes. >> and just remind us of everything the president is facing or has been facing, the accusations out there, not to mention the campaign finance violation accusation that basical basically was confirmed by the sdny. >> exactly. i asked if they believed what we know publicly about trump could be viewed as sufficient grounds for impeachment. this person said yes, pointed to the michael cohen matter, the fact that the president is identified as individual one in court filings describing a criminal scheme. >> federal court filings. >> exactly. and then in addition to that,
what we already know about the russia story. there are plenty of house democrats who believe the fact of the trump tower meeting, the fact michael cohen lied, apparently with some sort of approval or green light from trump's lawyers to congress about conversations that were ongoing during the campaign regarding the president going into a business in moscow. those are things that we've sort of become inoculated to publicly because we've been hearing about these stories for years now. for some congressional democrats, they point at those items and say if these things had broken yesterday, we would be treating them like they're much more grave and much more concerning than we are. >> there you go. betsy, thank you so much for joining us. and in person, no less. jake sherman, ben wittis, phil rucker. thank you guys as well. coming up, we'll continue this conversation and look at how high a standard democrats have set for impeachment. but first, we have breaking news. federal prosecutors say it is the largest college admissions scam they have ever seen. at least 50 people are caught up in it, including some famous folks you might know.
folks you w so, i started with the stats regarding my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. like how humira has been prescribed to over 300,000 patients. and how many patients saw clear or almost clear skin in just 4 months - the kind of clearance that can last. humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to symptoms. numbers are great. and seeing clearer skin is pretty awesome, too. that's what i call a body of proof. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. want more proof? ask your dermatologist about humira. this is my body of proof.
i found a companyeans to who believes in me.rt. they look out for me. and they help me grow my career. at comcast it's my job to constantly monitor our network, prevent problems, and to help provide the most reliable service possible. my name is tanya, i work at the network operations center for comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome.
two hollywood actresses are among at least 50 people charged in a nationwide cheating scheme to get students into elite universities. felicity huffman and lori laughlin both face charges. prosecutors say the scheme was master minded by william singer, who's due to appear in court in boston in a few minutes. according to the indictment, the
scam helped students cheat on college entrance exams. it allowed adults to take the test or fix the students' answers. parents also allegedly paid singer approximately $25 million to get their kids admitted as recruited athletes, regardless of athletic ability. in some cases, their faces were even photoshopped on other athletes' bodies. >> the coaches were allotted slots for athletic recruitment. the coaches worked with singer, meaning they accepted bribes. singer gave the coaches sufficiently impressive fake athletic credentials. the coaches used those athletic profiles to convince everyone else internally that this was a good recruit for the team. the person was admitted, and the coach pocketed a bribe. >> federal prosecutors made it clear today that none of the universities are co-conspirators. joining us here in washington, d.c., nbc news justice correspondent pete williams and from the usc campus in los angeles, nbc news correspondent
steve patterson. pete, this is a wild story. photoshopping faces on to bodies. how do you -- if you're recruiting somebody for a college sports team, rowing, say, and the recruit doesn't show up and join the team or even try out for the team, doesn't that raise some red flags? >> yes, but by then, they've been admitted. what the prosecutors say is in some cases, the students did show up. sometimes they faked injuries. sometimes they played a little and then left. but that's all after they were admitted. what the prosecutors say here today is on the one hand, of course, they got shots on the tennis team. these are the schools involved here. ucla, university of san diego, usc, stanford, georgetown, ut austin, wake forest, and yale. these are not the marquee sports. this is not football and basketball. this is water polo, soccer,
sailing, tennis. that sort of thing, sports that often, because they're sort of second-tier sports, need the money. sometimes these bribes did go to the programs, but mostly the government says they went to the coaches. and what they say is you're not only getting a spot on the tennis team. of course, at georgetown, for example, they say this happened 12 times. but you're also depriving somebody who's actually qualified to get into georgetown a spot at the university because these are some of the most competitive schools in the country to get into. so that's why the government says this is especially bad. it's the wealthy, the elite using their money to buy their children a way into these schools. in the meantime, shoving out somebody who was legitimately qualified. >> so what sort of charges will these parents be facing? again, two famous people, people that you would know at home, have been caught up in this. lori laughlin and felicity
huffman. lori laughlin from "full house" and felicity huffman from "desperate housewives." so what will the charges look like? >> well, lori laughlin and her husband, who's a fashion designer, for the most part the charges that have been filed are racketeering charges. what's happening for the parents and some of the people who were not the ring leaders here, they're being charged with mail or wire fraud. the applications that were sent into these schools were sent interstate. so that's what makes them a federal crime. the fbi says there were 300 agents out today nationwide making 46 arrests. fbi and irs people. the irs is involved here because singer, the man in the charge you're looking at here, used a charitable foundation that he set up to launder the money, the
government says, that he was paid, this $25 million plus he was paid to get these wealthy children into the various schools. >> the children presumably were 18 around the time this was happening, if they're going to college. why are they not caught up in this? why are they being referred to as children? >> so the government hasn't charged any of them. they say in some cases, the children, the students, these young people did not know what their parents were doing. let me explain how that could be. you certainly know if your parents phonied up your credentials as a water polo player if you've never been in a swimming pool. the scam also involved amping up these young people's a.c.t. and s.a.t. entrance exam scores, qualifying test scores. what they would do, where the students didn't know, is after the student turned in a paper, it would be intercepted by
somebody in league with the testing company who would then change the test scores to get a higher grade. >> steve patterson, you're at usc. that's where lori laughlin's two daughters go. what's the reaction there? >> reporter: well, shock, i think, broadly across campus. the administrator, who's currently caught up in this according to the indictment, is the senior associate athletic director here, charged along with the head water polo coach, as pete was referencing, with conspiracy to commit racketeering, along with another ucla coach as well. according to the indictment, she was paid between $50,000 and $100,000 per student to designate each one of those students as an athletic recruit. as pete said, to sort of bounce them or bump them up in the recruitment and guide them along in this process, to help get
them boosted into school here. obviously people here reacting very shocked. back to you. >> steve patterson, pete williams. gentlemen, thank you. wild story. up next, meet joe, watch joe run, maybe, probably? run, maybe, probably er in invention and progress. but only 11% of its executives are women, and the quit rate is twice as high for them. here's a hack: make sure there's bandwidth for everyone. the more you know.
gimme two minutes. and i'll tell you some important things to know about medicare. first, it doesn't pay for everything. say this pizza... is your part b medical expenses. this much - about 80 percent... medicare will pay for. what's left... this slice here... well... you have to pay for that. and that's where an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company comes in. this type of plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. and these are the only plans to carry the aarp endorsement. that's because they meet their high standards of quality and service. review aarp medicare supplement plans and their rates in this free decision guide. call united healthcare insurance company or go online. visit aarpmedicaresupplement.com to request yours. even apply online... any time. oh. speaking of time... about a little over half way
and there's more to tell. like, how... with this type of plan, you'll have the freedom to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. great for staying with the one you know... or finding... somebody new, like a specialist. there are no networks and no referrals needed. none. and when you travel, your plan will go with you anywhere in the country. so, if you're in another state visiting the grandkids, stay awhile...enjoy... and know that you'll still be able to see any doctor who accepts medicare patients. learn more with this free decision guide. call or go online to request yours. tick, tick, tick, time for a wrap up. a medicare supplement plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. you know, the pizza slice. it allows you to choose any doctor, who accepts medicare patients... and these are the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. whew! call or go online and find out more.
i appreciate the energy you showed when i got up here. save it a little longer. i may need it in a few weeks. >> well, there you have it. joe biden teased a third presidential run this morning in front of a very receptive audience of union firefighters. the former vice president would enter an already crowded field, which might get a little more crowded as two 2018 candidates who failed in their runs but generated a lot of buzz consider runs of their own. joining me, moveon.org senior adviser and msnbc contributor, and former pennsylvania republican congressman ryan costello. so biden there, it sounds like he's running. >> yeah, i would probably bet that he is running. and why not. why shouldn't he run?
he's fondly remembered and affectionately called uncle joe, but fondly remembered as obama's number two and a lot of obama's successes are connected to joe biden. as we've seen, he has the name i.d. from all of these polls that keep coming out. i do think that the thing he will have to worry about is his record as senator for more than 30 years. >> he has a lot of baggage. >> he has a lot of baggage. i think everyone will have to deal with their roshecord, but in particular has more than 30 years. he's aware of it. he's been talking about it in different areas, about the crime bill and the structural inequality. he's talked about that a little bit. but he's going to have to do a little more. >> is joe biden somebody who's going to be representative of change for the democratic party? is he the face of that? is he the candidate for that? >> he's not the candidate for change. he's the candidate for stability, a statesman, someone
that people are familiar with, someone that's connected to barack obama, president obama. i think that's what people feel very comfortable with. and because of that, he will do well with primary voters, but he's not change. >> i would say, while not a democrat, that my sense is that a lot of democrats' appetite for change is something other than trump. the strength i think of a biden candidacy vis-a-vis some of the other democratic primary opponents is he's the one candidate that's not in any way susceptible to being rebranded by trump and a nickname. people know who joe biden is. one man's baggage is another man's experience. obviously if you've been in congress for 30 years, you have a long voting record. but i think the american public, for better or worse, knows who he is. i don't think any nickname coming out of the president's mouth is going to change people's impression of the vice president. >> let's listen to joe biden talking about the president's budget today.
>> did you see the budget was just introduced? it cuts -- it cuts $845 billion, almost a trillion-dollar cut, in medicare. and almost a quarter trillion, $240 billion cut in medicaid. why? because of a tax cut for the super wealthy that created a deficit of $1.9 trillion, and now they got to go make somebody pay for it. >> so he doesn't sound unlike the other democratic candidates who are considerably more progressive than he is, but is that message that he's sending there to those union voters, those firefighters, going to resonate more because it's coming from working-class joe biden, who has made inroads in those communities and has been a representative of those communities for a long time now?
>> look, i think he's the strongest candidate to go up against president trump. i think he carries a certain sense of credibility because he's been on the playing field for a long time. now, let me just flip the switch. it's easy to talk about what the cuts would be, and they're not going to happen. it's a budget that's never going to see the light of day. the president's budget is going to get talked about one day. it's not going to go anywhere. >> but it's a list of donald trump's priorities and sets the stage for 2020. >> it's a political statement he's making. >> respect what both of you said, at the sam point in time, it's highly likely the democrats don't put a budget on the floor because, number one, they can't pass it, and number two, it would raise the deficit even more. you're going to have a question about republicans want to cut here and republicans will say, yeah, well, democrats just want to raise taxes and increase spending on the flip side. i don't think that argument right there is the closing message. to be sure, when you are in a democratic primary right now, it's very easy to play
whack-a-mole against the president's budget. >> can i just say something though? with what you saw there with vice president biden is he talked about something that was really real to people, talking about cutting medicare. we got to remember what trump said back during in 2016, that he would protect medicare, protect social security. so i think there is some inroads there to make it really clear. remember, he was talking to the firefighters who really support him, who are part of that community that are being affected by this, every day people working on our behalf. so i think that is a strong message. i think that's one of the things that makes biden so strong, is he could be a good messenger when it comes to things like that. >> what about stacy abrams or beth t be beto o'rourke? >> i love stacy abrams. she's a rock star. whatever she decides to do, she's going to have a lot of support. she's authentic, incredibly smart, and she resonates. people were excited about her in
2018. i'm excited to hear what she's going to do next. >> would republicans be concerned about a stacy abrams candidacy? >> so i think everything you said about her positive traits, i would agree with. i think it's very difficult -- and beto is a friend, i served with committee on him, very difficult to lose a statewide race and turn around and run for president. having said that, to your point, if i am a democrat right now, i would like to see as many democrats come to the table with as diverse a background and set of expeernsriences as possible. you want your party to be reflective of the american party. i think it's good she's part of the conversation. >> just one more thing. beto and stacy abrams did something that was pretty exciting, which they really energized the democratic base, young people, people of color. that's what the democratic peert needs. >> they came close in some red states. thanks, guys. next up, democrats set a new
precedent for impeaching a president. have they? a president. have they? (vo) we're carvana, the company who invented car vending machines and buying a car 100% online. now we've created a brand new way for you to sell your car. whether it's a few years old or dinosaur old, we want to buy your car. so go to carvana and enter your license plate, answer a few questions, and our techno-wizardry calculates your car's value and gives you a real offer in seconds. when you're ready, we'll come to you, pay you on the spot, and pick up your car. that's it. so ditch the old way of selling your car and say hello to the new way... at carvana.
with a $500,000 life insurance policy. how much do you think it cost him? $100 a month? $75? $50? actually, duncan got his $500,000 for under $28 a month. less than a dollar a day. his secret? selectquote. in just minutes, a selectquote agent will comparison shop nearly a dozen highly-rated life insurance companies, and give you a choice of your five best rates. duncan's wife cassie got a $750,000 policy for under $22 a month. give your family the security it needs at a price you can afford.
do you think impeachment would be to divisive for the country? >> i think that when the public sees the report, they will come to a judgment, and it may be a judgment that's divisive or it may be a judgment that brings everybody together, one way or the other. let's way for the report. >> that was minority leader chuck schumer answering a
question asked by our own kasie hunt about comments nancy pelosi made about impeachment. a political calculation to avoid the question specifically, but does that mean house democrats are setting the bar impossibly high for removing a president going forward? joining me, harvard law professor lawrence tribe, the co-author of "to end a presidency: the power of impeachment," now available in paperback with an updated epilogue. so mr. tribe, you're the man to talk to on this, after all you wrote the book on it. let's take both sides of this issue. what's the argument for impeachment right now if you're anybody in congress? >> there is no good argument for impeachment right now, but the people who are upset with nancy pelosi seeming to set the bar impossibly high, i think, are assuming that what she means is no matter how compelling the evidence, that this president
basically committed crimes noshd to get into office and then crimes in order to stay in office that somehow, unless and until mcconnell signs off on it, it's a no go. that's a terrible position, but i don't think that's really what she was doing. >> she did say bipartisan, larry. >> she did. and i think she said it reflecting our history. there cannot be a successful impeachment that is purely partisan. but that doesn't mean -- and i agree with ben wittis here. it doesn't mean you need to have an avalanche of republicans. it just means that the nation as a whole and not just anti-trump people, not just democrats, become convinced as a result of the mueller report, the southern district of new york, and the ongoing investigations in the house that we have an unacceptably dangerous criminal president. but it seems to me that those
investigations need breathing room. what was going on is republicans were saying that people like jerry nadler have already decided to impeach, that people, you know, like adam schiff have decided. what i think nancy pelosi was doing quite cleverly was saying chill out. they have decided they need to get all the facts out and then we can decide how best to go forward. i think that's the right posture. but i do worry that the word bipartisan may be seen as a signal that until mitch mcconnell and a bunch of republicans who are in the president's hip pocket sign off on it, there can be no impeachment. i think that would be an abdication of the principled role that the house needs to play. the house really needs to worry about setting the precedent that a president is above the law no
matter what. >> but impeachment wouldn't necessarily mean that donald trump would be removed from office. there would be an impeachment vote, there would be hearings, then there would be a trial in the senate. this is something that's embedded in the constitution for a president who abuses his or her power, commits high crimes and misdemeanors, whatever the congress defines it as. and this president has already been accused of a number of abuses of power, and he's been accused of a campaign finance violation, a crime, something that a federal court in new york has already found guilty or gotten the co-conspirator there to plead guilty for. so there's already quite a bit of evidence out there. if you dismiss that and say this is off the table at this point, are you saying to the next president or even to this president that you can get away with a whole lot and still remain in power, just so long as you have your team on your side? >> if you are saying it's off
the table, then that would send a dangerous message not only to trump but to all future presidents. i agree with your recitation of all the evidence we already have. i think, however, the dots have not been connected in a way that feels compelling to anything more than 40% of the american people. and it's simply a fact that with 40%, you can't remove a president. that does not mean that under no circumstances could the house properly decide to impeachment president. you're certainly right, katy, that that's a separate matter from removing him, and impeachment is itself a very serious decision. it's a decision much more serious than a censure. >> larry, we only have a couple more seconds. i want to ask you one other thing. what about leading public opinion? does congress have a responsibility to lead public opinion on this?
that's what is said in the "new york times." if americans are reticent about impeachment t may be because political elites talk about impeachment as something to be avoided. perhaps the democrats treated impeachment as a live option for addressing the clear evidence of the president's criminality, voters would respond more positively about the question of impeaching a president. >> i think that voters will respond to the facts as they emerge publicly. so far, too much of what's been discovered is under the radar. it's redacted material, and it's in secret. yes, congress must lead public opinion, but the way you lead is not just with rhetoric and not with talking impeachment all the time. it's with revealing more and more of the facts about this corrupt presidency. that may help shape public opinion, and that's what's needed. >> larry tribe, always good to see you. thanks for coming on.
>> great to see you, katy. and there's still time to save our planet. our next guest says we already have 90% of what we need to do it. enol extra strength. and last longer with fewer pills. so why am i still thinking about this? i'll take aleve. aleve. proven better on pain. but i'm more than a number. when i'm not sharing ideas with my colleagues i'm defending my kingdom. my essilor lenses offer more than vision correction with three innovative technologies for my ultimate in vision clarity and protection together in a single lens: the essilor ultimate lens package. so, i can do more of what i love! buy two pairs of essilor's best lenses and get a $100 back instantly. see more. do more. essilor if your moderate to severeor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough
it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio®, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio® works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract, and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio®. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach.
p3 it's meat, cheese and nuts. i keep my protein interesting. oh yea, me too. i have cheese and uh these herbs. p3 snacks. the more interesting way to get your protein. the green new deal has faced its fair share of criticism, but some research says it is possible to completely phase out our fossil fuels, if not by 2030, then by 2050. stanford professor mark jacobson
told the new yorker that right now we have about 95% of the technology we need, and he and his colleagues have a plan for it. in fact, they say they have a road map to zero emissions for all 50 economy. the key like the green new deal is to convert the electric great to clean engineer. mark, there are a lot of folks that look at the hurdles before us and getting something like the green new deal done and think it's just too much. how can we possibly do all that in such a short time frame given all the reports out there that say we need to do something quickly. you say we have the infrastructure or technology already in place. explain that. >> we're developed plans to transition to 100% clean renewability energy. what we need in the united states is to electrify all energy sectors, transportation,
heating and cooling and we have 90 to 95% of all the technologies we need to do that. we have the hour plants and heat pumps that transition all the heating and cooling and we have electric vehicles now. the things we don't have are long distance aircraft like boeing 747s, we would video to transition those to the hydrogen fuel cell and electric hybrids. aside from long distance aircraft and ships work ve most everything we need. >> what about those who argue it's too expensive to implement all of this and retro fit all the buildings and get the grid up and running the way it would need to be to address the concerns? >> it's the opposite. it's more expensive not to do it. the up front capital cost of
transitioning all energy including storage and transmission and distribution is $9.5 trillion up front, but that you really have to look at the cost of what's called the cost of energy which is how much people pay for unit of energy they consume. it cuts the cost by one half because we use one half the energy. it's much more efficient to electrify everything. 13% of all energy worldwide is used to mine, transform fossil fuels and uranium. we lose another 21% of all energy due to the inefficiency of combustion and vehicles. we save 21% of energy. heat pumps, getting rid of gas heaters in homes eliminates 15 to 16% worldwide if we transition those. there are others, too. all in all, we reduce power
demand by over 50%. this means instead of the united states paying $2 trillion per year for energy, we pay $1 trillion and we also have to count the fact that 62,000 people die of air pollution from fossil fuel and biofuel combustion and millions more are injured or become ill. that costs $600 billion a year. climate change will be $3.3 trillion a year by 2050 and more worldwide due to u.s. emissions. it's like instead of a system, the system costing $5.9 trillion a year, it costs $1 trillion a year and 80% reduction of cost or social cost and 50% reduction of cost to consumers by transition. we create 2 million more jobs than we lose due to building out
anda operating it overtime. you get job creation and reduce economic cost and reduce consumer costs by 50% and by not doing it, you are losing out. >> who are you talking to? who are you giving the road map to? >> the road map for the u.s. for all 50 states was available in 2015 and all three presidential candidates on the democratic side adopted it as part of the democratic platform in 2050 as well. there over 100 cities in the united states have committed to clean renewable energy and 160 international companies including the companies in the world committed to this. apple and google achieved renewables in their power sectors. california and hawaii have laws to go to 100% and washington, d.c. has laws to do that as well by 2035. there are now at least six or se
seven or eight states that have proposals to go to 100% renewables. this is something that a movement has started on a while ago. it's coming to fruition. i want to point out that there was a public opinion poll in 13 countries and 80% of the people in this poll including over 80% in the united states want to go to clean renewable energy by 2050. this is something people want and it's possible. it's economically beneficial and jobs-wise beneficial. there is no reason not to do this. >> mark jacobson, thank you very much for joining us. appreciate it. we'll be right back. appreciate it. we'll be right back. nothing says spring like fresh flowers,
on choicehotels.com like this: (sneezes) earn one free night when you stay just twice this spring. allergies. or.. badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com. i felt i couldn't be at my best wifor my family. c, in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured and left those doubts behind. i faced reminders of my hep c every day. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. even hanging with friends i worried about my hep c. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. mavyret is the only 8-week cure for all common types of hep c. before starting mavyret your doctor will test if you've had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b, a liver or kidney transplant, other liver problems, hiv-1, or other medical conditions, and all medicines you take including herbal supplements. don't take mavyret with atazanavir or rifampin, or if you've had certain liver problems. common side effects include headache and tiredness.
one more thing. can't get enough of tim apple? we got you. >> it was over and now it reblossomed. into an ongoing national scandal called applegate. words don't just disappear. from the middle of sentences unless it's cbs bleeping me when i say excuses like this are insane. >> if you are going to lie, improve your situation. officer, i have not been drinking because i was doing too much cocape. the best part of all of this is trump now has to double down and
do it to everyone. there is my friend elon tesla. it's steven movies. my buddy paul crimes. >> that's it for me. i'm katyture in washington. 3:00 p.m. ali picks things up. >> very a great rest of your operation. operation varsity blues. that's a code name into the largest college admissions scam ever prosecuted. the $25 million scheme with 33 wealthy parents to pay to make sure their children were admitted to elite colleges. we are talking about deception and fraud. >> the real victims are the hardworking student who is did everything they could to set themselves up for success in the college admissions process and ended up being shutout because far less qualified students and their families simply bou